In 1973, inmates of the Philadelphia Prison System, represented by private counsel, filed a class action suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia against prison officials. Plaintiffs alleged that due to overcrowding, the conditions of confinement in the Philadelphia prison system ...
read more >

In 1973, inmates of the Philadelphia Prison System, represented by private counsel, filed a class action suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia against prison officials. Plaintiffs alleged that due to overcrowding, the conditions of confinement in the Philadelphia prison system constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court (Judge Donald Jamieson) issued an order decreeing that the prison system as presently operated was in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Jamieson appointed a master to review the conditions and to file a report and recommendation to assist the court in framing its final decree. Defendants appealed.

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Judge Bowman) affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The court held that current conditions did constitute cruel and unusual punishment, but also held that the lower court erred by appointing a master. Hendrick v. Jackson, 309 A.2d 187 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1973).

In 1976, the court issued a remedial decree specifically designed to maintain the prison population at an acceptable level. The decree was modified in 1980 and 1981. In 1982, litigation continued over a provision of the decree that allowed for certain violent prisoners to be released after posting bail. The District Attorney of Philadelphia sought leave to intervene, but was denied by the court. The district attorney appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, but the court affirmed the lower court ruling finding that the district attorney's petition was not timely. Jackson v. Hendrick, 446 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1982).

Because this is a state case, we don't have the docket for this case, and therefore our information ends with the most recent decision, dated May 25, 1982.